> > >

Termination of Haitian TPS Exposes Racial Disparities

Developed by Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA, Senior Policy Advisor National Association of Social Workers

Background

In January 2010, Haitians in the United States were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) , allowing them temporary immigration due to conditions in Haiti following the catastrophic 7.0-magnitude earthquake in that year. The earthquake devastated Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas, killed or injured large numbers of people, displaced well over a million, and severely damaged Haiti's already fragile governmental, medical, transportation, water, and communications infrastructure.

Because of the continued public safety challenges in Haiti, in 2011, the Obama administration extended and redesignated Haiti as a TPS recipient. The administration’s justification for that decision can be summed up by the following statement by the then Homeland Security director:“In the extended aftermath of the devastating earthquakes in Haiti, the United States has remained fully committed to upholding our responsibility to assist individuals affected by this tragedy by using tools available under the law…’Providing a temporary refuge for Haitian nationals who are currently in the United States and whose personal safety would be endangered by returning to Haiti is part of this administration’s continuing efforts to support Haiti’s recovery.”

Haiti’s public safety situation worsened sharply in 2018 amid protests over economic conditions. After the 2021 assassination of Haiti’s president, the country experienced a near-complete breakdown in civil order, leaving much of society lawless, violent, and economically unstable. Given the severe deterioration of public safety in Haiti—including expanding gang control, mass displacement, and persistently high levels of violence—many experts argue that conditions in Haiti are likely more dangerous now than when TPS was first granted in 2010.

However, on June 27, 2025, the Trump administration announced it was terminating TPS for Haiti. At that time, the Secretary of Homeland Security claimed that “the environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home.” The administration’s rationale prompted leading immigrant-rights and civil-rights advocates— such as the Haitian Bridge Alliance — to contend that the Trump administration's decision lacks a persuasive justification. More to the point, immigration justice organizations strongly suggest that anti-Black bias and discriminatory treatment of Haitian immigrants had a central role in making the decision.

Intersection of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Current US Immigration Policies

Context

As of March 2025, roughly 331,000 Haitians held TPS —close to one-quarter of all TPS holders nationally. In keeping with the administration’s public statements signaling its intent to end TPS, in July 2025, the director of the Department of Homeland Security formally announced that Haiti no longer met the conditions for TPS because it determined that conditions in Haiti no longer satisfied the statutory requirements for TPS designation. In July 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the administration's termination of Haitian TPS to proceed, overturning the practical effect of lower-court protections and exposing Haitian TPS holders to loss of work authorization and potential removal .

Advocates Raise Concerns about Racial Animus in Targeting Haitians

With the Supreme Court all but giving the administration a “green light”, it was expected that DHS would soon begin the process of mass removals of the over 300,000 impacted Haitians—potentially including children who have never lived in Haiti. Given that stark reality, major immigrant and civil rights organizations voiced outrage that included openly raising the thought that the issue of race was a driving force behind the TPS decision.

One of the first steps for examining the role of race and ethnicity in US immigration policies — especially those policies associated with mass deportation— is to understand the issue by examining which racial or ethnic populations are most subjected to enforcement, loss of legal status, ICE detention, and deportation, and are more likely to be denied humanitarian protection such as asylum and TPS. We should then look at whether the application of seemingly unfair polices fall disproportionately on particular racial, ethnic, and national-origin groups .With that in mind — for the purpose of conciseness— we will focus the immediate discussion on the disparate application of immigration policy as it relates to Black immigrant population such as Haitians and Somalis.

Revocation of Haitian TPS status by the Trump administration is a persuasive “case study” for how preexisting antagonistic racial perceptions on the part of the policy makers leads to harmful disparate impact once that policy is applied. That proposition is shared by others who insist that revocation of Haitian’s TPS status is best viewed and analyzed through the prism of racial justice, economic justice, and human rights.

With respect to Haitians living in the US under TPS protections, there is a perception — formed well before the TPS decision — that President Trump held the Haitian community in low regard. That view is reinforced by an opinion articulated in 2018 by a federal court of appeals in Ramos v. Wolf. In an official written opinion in that case, it was stated that public comments by the president “could reasonably be understood as comments not simply about conditions in Haiti but about Haitian people themselves and their perceived worth.” The court of appeals specifically quoted troubling public utterances by the president including: Haitian immigrants “all have AIDS”; publicly asking “Why do we need more Haitians?”; and referring to Haiti and other (mostly African) countries as being [expletive] hole countries”

As could be expected, President Trump's history of negative public comments about Haitians—not merely about conditions in Haiti, but about Haitians themselves—has generated considerable concern among civil-rights and immigrant-rights advocates.

In their estimation, what is perceived as racialized hostility towards Haitians is not isolated to that population. For instance, there is widely held belief that maltreatment of Haitians is mirrored in the treatment afforded other immigrants of color — particular those of Black African origin. We need only to recall President Trump’s (and Vice President Vance’s) documented harsh comments about Somali immigrants .Viewed together, the rhetoric concerning Haitians and Somalis provides a reasonable basis for advocates to perceive a broader pattern of hostility toward Black immigrant communities.

Compounding Impact of TPS-Related Racial Disparities

For as many as 350,000 Haitians whose TPS protections have been terminated, life has become profoundly unsettling, with many facing the immediate prospect of lost jobs, separation from family members, loss of lawful immigration status, and possible deportation to a country experiencing an extraordinary security and humanitarian crisis. Human-rights and immigrant-rights organizations have consequently portrayed Haitian TPS holders as among the clearest examples of the traumatic human consequences of the Trump administration's immigration policies. Those consequences became substantially more immediate after the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision cleared the legal path for the administration's termination of Haitian TPS to take effect.

That said, negative human consequences will continue so long as pervasive racial and ethnic disparities exist in immigration policy-making — including TPS termination policies. As already mentioned, lower federal courts have acknowledged past public statements by President Trump could be construed to suggest racial animus against Haitians (and Somalis). However, SCOTUS — citing its belief that the Haiti TPS decision was “race neutral” — ruled in favor of the administration. Many believe SCOTUS was mistaken. Their view is that it is highly likely that policies tainted by pre-existing racial animosity towards groups impacted by those policy will invariably result in disparate treatment.

Furthermore, minimizing or ignoring racial disparities will likely reinforce even broader racial disparity in humanitarian-based immigration policy. For instance, the SCOTUS TPS decision occurred simultaneous to termination— or attempted termination— of protections affecting several predominantly Black immigrant populations. This includes those from Cameroon, Ethiopia, Somalia and South Sudan.

A case in point is in late August 2026, a federal judge gave the Trump administration clearance to move forward with its plan to rescind TPS for Thousands of Ethiopian TPS recipients.This particular decision is directly related to SCOTUS decision on Haitian TPS recipients. Advocates representing African immigrant rights strongly condemned the Court’s ruling.

Haitian Mixed Status Families Affected by TPS Revocation

Another direct result of the injustice of eliminating TPS for Haitians is that many Haitian TPS beneficiaries live in mixed- status families which includes a TPS recipient as well as a spouse and/or children who are U.S. citizens. This, by definition, raises concerns about family separation. Although termination of TPS does not necessarily mean individuals are immediately removed from the family, the probability is high that —unless the TPS holder has another lawful status option — he or she will likely be targeted for immediate deportation. Subsequently, family separation can become imminent.

If, in fact, the TPS recipients are issued a removal order, they have an option of taking their U.S.-citizen children with them or allowing them to remain in the United States. Clearly, this elevates the harmful consequences of family separation . Termination of TPS is, in itself, traumatic for Haitians and other affected populations. First and foremost, mandatory removal invariably triggers a financial and family support crises . But equally problematic is the early childhood trauma is likely to manifest in children separated from their parent(s)

The Likely Impact on Children

The reality is that the termination of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has now effectively taken effect. DHS has begun removals to Haiti, and roughly 350,000 former Haitian TPS beneficiaries have lost the protection and work authorization TPS provided, potentially exposing many who lack another lawful status to removal. DHS recently sent a second deportation flight in a week to Haiti, returning 57 Haitians to Haiti. Significantly, the flight included several children who were born in the U.S. and Brazil.

The children in this case were members of two families whose parents did not request DHS to have their children removed with them. In truth the parents were upset that DHS arbitrarily deported their children— primarily because the children were born in the U.S., meaning that they have birthright citizenship. Ignoring that fact, DHS and still sent the children to Haiti— a country in which they have never lived.

From a child-welfare perspective, the fact that some of these children apparently had never lived in Haiti is especially significant. It is highly unlikely that in Haiti the children will have access to schools, pediatric or related health care, community ties, or extended-family network or other support systems. Additionally, it is very possible that the children will have little or no familiarity with Haitian Creole or French languages — further exacerbating the trauma associated with adjusting to an unfamiliar culture and environment.

Two important policy questions remain for consideration. First, given present conditions on the ground in Haiti, was terminating TPS justified by DHS—and to what extent is there credible evidence that anti-Haitian or racial animus influenced the decision? Second, as removals proceed, what planning—if any—have DHS and other federal agencies undertaken to address the foreseeable economic, psychological and child-welfare consequences for mixed-status families, particularly U.S.-citizen children whose parents may lose employment, be detained, or be deported?

With respect to the first question, we discussed at length that derogatory public statements about Haitians made by President had all the elements of racial animus. A federal district court clearly made that point of its written opinion. That SCOTUS rejected that argument using the conservative philosophy of race neutrality as the basis for the rejection is a problem. Civil rights and immigrant rights groups have fully embraced the notion that termination of TPS for Haitians was racially motivated. For that reason, it is very likely they will continue the fight to bring racial equity the US immigration services and policies.

With respect to the second question, as mentioned, DHS has moved forward with executing the DHS order mandating deporting Haitians. Unless former TPS beneficiaries have another lawful status, they are now subject to arrest, detention and removal by ICE agents. While this does not mean that DHS will immediately begin ICE-like raids rounding up Haitians for removal, the potential exposure to ICE enforcement cannot be minimized.

Additionally, mixed status families can expect disruptions of family financial support and child trauma related to family separations. These are real and serious consequences that will almost immediately impact thousands of people. DHS— as a matter of policy— does not now nor in the past assume responsibility for child-welfare and behavioral health support. But this consequence is a significant area of concern for national groups that are active in preventing injustices against mixed status families. Such organizations have begun to mobilize support for impacted families and children.